Prior to joining Pinterest, Tony co-founded CIS’s Fair Use Project, which he led as its Executive Director from 2006 to 2012. In the course of his work at CIS, Tony represented conductor Lawrence Golan in his challenge to Congress's constitutional power to remove works from the public domain, which he argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. He also represented visual artist Shepard Fairey in copyright litigation against The Associated Press over Fairey's "Obama Hope" posters, and represented RDR Books as trial counsel in its copyright and Lanham Act dispute with J.K. Rowling and Warner Brothers over the Harry Potter Lexicon. Those cases followed notable victories on behalf of the producers and distributors of the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in litigation against Yoko Ono Lennon and EMI Records, on behalf of Professor Carol Shloss in her lawsuit against the Estate of James Joyce. Tony also represented a wide array of organizations as amicus curiae in federal appeals courts throughout the country, including The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Creative Commons, and the American Library Association. In addition to litigating, Tony advised dozens of documentary filmmakers, writers, artists and other content creators on fair use and other intellectual property issues.

As a Lecturer in Law, Tony has taught both lecture and clinical courses at Stanford Law School, including Fair Use in Film, Advanced Topics in Cyberlaw, and the Cyberlaw / Fair Use Clinic.

Prior to his work at Stanford, Tony was a litigation partner in the San Francisco office of Bingham McCutchen. He is a 1997 graduate of Harvard Law School, and was a law clerk to the Hon. Barry T. Moskowitz, U.S. District Judge, Southern District of California.

The Library of Congress dropped a bombshell today in the form of new exemptions from the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions.

The biggest splash of all was for smartphones: The Library approved an exemption proposed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation that allows smartphone owners to modify the handset's software to run unauthorized applications.

Last year, we won an important victory for our clients when the District Court held the URAA violates the First Amendment insofar as it suppresses parties' rights to keep using works they exploited when those works were in the public domain. Yesterday, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, holding the URAA does not violate our clients' First Amendment rights. (Full opinion is attached below.)

Last summer, a federal district court in New York issued a preliminary injunction banning the publication of 60 Years Later - Coming Through The Rye on the ground it represented a likely infringement of JD Salinger's copyrights in Catcher In The Rye. And that was the problem: Under the District Court's analysis, the injunction followed almost automatically from its finding of likely infringement.

Microsoft is mad because Google is trying to finalize a deal that would give it a monopoly over the right to make digital copies of orphan books. But Microsoft is apparently in talks with News Corp. to obtain a monopoly over the right to make digital copies of News Corp's websites. News Corp. is mad because its content isn't making as much money as Rupert Murdoch wants it to. So his plan is to charge money for something nobody pays for -- the right to search and index websites. Murdoch hopes Microsoft is mad enough at Google to write a giant check for something everyone gets for free.

As reported, we are no longer representing Shepard Fairey in his dispute with The Associated Press. The events that led to this have been well-publicized; they involve Shepard's deletion of electronic files relating to the question of which photograph he used to create the Obama Hope poster, and his creation of new documents designed to make it look as though he used a different photograph.

There are lots of reasons lawyers may not be able to continue representing a client. But it's important to make one thing clear: Our decision in that regard had nothing to do with the underlying merits of Shepard's case. We believe as strongly as ever in the fair use and free expression issues this case presents, and we believe Shepard will prevail on them. The question of which photo he used as a reference simply should not make a difference, much less overshadow the merits of this important case.

Shepard has a fantastic set of lawyers representing him now, so he is in good hands, as are the important rights at stake in this case. That fact makes us profoundly happy. We'll be watching and rooting for Shepard, albeit now from the sidelines.

Pages

We filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit on behalf of The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts urging the appeals court to reverse a district court decision that ignored established fair use principles that many artists rely upon in creating their work.

We filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation asking the First Circuit to affirm the district court’s reduced damages award in Sony v. Tenenbaum, a file-sharing case in which a jury originally ordered a college student to pay $675,000 for infringing copyright in 30 songs.

We filed an amicus brief in the Fourth Circuit in support of the Baltimore Ravens and the NFL urging the Fourth Circuit to grant rehearing or rehearing en banc, after a divided panel ruled that the Raven’s incidental use of a copyrighted logo in historical game films was not a fair use.

We filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation asking the First Circuit to affirm the district court’s reduced damages award in Sony v. Tenenbaum, a file-sharing case in which a jury originally ordered a college student to pay $675,000 for infringing copyright in 30 songs.

Pages

For the originator of a meme, legal protections are slim, and that’s the way it should be, says copyright attorney Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford Law School. “If you’re the first person to do the video S- -t Girls Say, that doesn’t mean someone else can’t use the same idea with girls saying different stuff,” he says. “Just because you’re the first one to do something doesn’t mean you should be the only one to get to do it.”

The Online News Association, in conjunction with the UNC Center for Media Law & Policy, the Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society and the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, presents the Third Annual Law School for Digital Journalists, part of the Thursday Workshops at ONA’s 2012 Conference & Awards Banquet, Sept. 20-23.

Join us for an evening conversation with CIS Executive Director of the Fair Use Project Anthony Falzone and Congressman Darrell Issa where they will discuss topics about SOPA, PIPA and internet freedom.

Anthony Falzone and Mark Schultz will debate whether significant developments in U.S. copyright law work to protect or violate individual freedom. Professor Paul Goldstein will moderate. Mr. Flazone is the Executive Director of the Fair Use Project with SLS's Center for Internet and Society. Mr. Schultz is a professor of law at Southern Illinois University School of Law, and his research focuses on the intersection of copyright and social norms.

Golan v. Holder involves a challenge to the constitutionality of the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), which restored copyright in foreign works previously in the public domain under U.S. copyright law. The plaintiffs in the case have challenged the URAA as contravening both the "limited times" requirement and the First Amendment. In October 2011, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case and is expected to issue a ruling before June 2012.

A growing chorus of opposition has emerged around the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) now pending in the House, as well as its Senate counterpart, the PROTECT-IP Act. If enacted, SOPA would provide unprecedented power for law enforcement and private actors to force service providers to block access to internet sites or shut off revenue streams.

A growing chorus of opposition has emerged around the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) now pending in the House, as well as its Senate counterpart, the PROTECT-IP Act. If enacted, SOPA would provide unprecedented power for law enforcement and private actors to force service providers to block access to internet sites or shut off revenue streams.